NewsBusters attacked Pelosi as "more of a shallow politician than a devout Christian" for calling the Dalai Lama "His Holiness" -- as Bush has repeatedly done
SUMMARY: Tim Graham, the Media Research Center's director of media analysis, wrote in a NewsBusters blog post that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "show[ed] she's more of a shallow politician than a devout Christian" for calling the Dalai Lama "His Holiness." However, Graham did not mention another prominent politician who has referred to the Dalai Lama as "His Holiness": President George W. Bush.
In an April 25 entry on the blog NewsBusters, Tim Graham, director of media analysis for the Media Research Center, wrote that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) "presents herself as a 'devout Catholic,' and was kissing the ring of Pope Benedict in Washington last week, no doubt honoring him as 'Your Holiness.' But in the April 21 Time, she recommends the Dalai Lama to be in Time's Top 100 (most influential people, and he's also 'His Holiness.' How many gods does Pelosi worship? Devout Catholics worship one God. Tibetan Buddhists worship a multiplicity of gods." In his post, Graham added that "His Holiness" is "certainly the title that the Dalai Lama uses, but that doesn't mean everyone in public life does ... At best, Pelosi's promiscuous definitions of holiness just show she's more of a shallow politician than a devout Christian." However, while Graham attacked Pelosi for "promiscuous definitions of holiness," he ignored another prominent politician who referred to the Dalai Lama as "His Holiness": President George W. Bush.
At an October 17, 2007, ceremony, Bush awarded the Congressional Gold Medal to the Dalai Lama. In his remarks, Bush referred to the Dalai Lama as "Your Holiness" once, and "His Holiness" three times:
BUSH: Madam Speaker; and Senator Byrd; Mr. Leader; members of the congressional delegation, particularly Senators Feinstein and Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; Senator Thomas -- God rest his soul -- distinguished guests, particularly our friend, Elie Wiesel; and Your Holiness.
[...]
Nearly two decades have passed since the Dalai Lama was welcomed to the White House for the very first time. Members of both of our political parties and world leaders have seen His Holiness as a man of faith and sincerity and peace. He's won the respect and affection of the American people -- and America has earned his respect and affection, as well.
As a nation, we are humbled to know that a young boy in Tibet -- as a young boy in Tibet, His Holiness kept a model of the Statue of Liberty at his bedside.
[...]
I congratulate His Holiness on this recognition. I'm so honored to be here with you, sir. Laura and I join all Americans in offering the people of Tibet our fervent prayer that they may find days of prosperity and peace.
Press secretaries in the Bush White House have also frequently referred to the Dalai Lama as "His Holiness." For example:
- A May 23, 2001, press release from then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer stated: "His Holiness, the XIV Dalai Lama, met at the White House this morning with the President and the National Security Advisor to discuss Tibet."
- A September 10, 2003, press release from then-White House press secretary Scott McClellan stated: "His Holiness, the XIV Dalai Lama, met at the White House this morning with the President. This was their second meeting to discuss Tibet."
- During a November 9, 2005, press briefing, McClellan stated: "[T]he President and Mrs. Bush look forward to welcoming His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, back to the White House. They will be meeting with His Holiness over in the Residence. This is the third meeting that the President has had here at the White House with His Holiness."
Graham's April 25 NewsBusters post in its entirety:
Despite her Bible mangling, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi presents herself as a "devout Catholic," and was kissing the ring of Pope Benedict in Washington last week, no doubt honoring him as "Your Holiness." But in the April 21 Time, she recommends the Dalai Lama to be in Time's Top 100 (most influential people, and he's also "His Holiness." How many gods does Pelosi worship? Devout Catholics worship one God. Tibetan Buddhists worship a multiplicity of gods. Pelosi wrote:
His Holiness the Dalai Lama describes himself as a "simple monk," but he represents so much more to so many. He is a source of spiritual refuge, and has used his position to promote wisdom, compassion and nonviolence as a solution to world conflicts.
That's certainly the title that the Dalai Lama uses, but that doesn't mean everyone in public life does. In fact, Dan Rather also recommended the Tibetan monk for the Person of the Year honors in the December 17, 2007 issue without the honorific:
The environment is the defining issue of our time. But if the list must be confined to a one-person nomination, the Dalai Lama -- for his contributions to peace, spirituality, philosophy, and science, as well as his nonviolent efforts on behalf of freedom from oppression for his people.
Is Pelosi's defense going to be she's just more spiritual than Dan Rather? At best, Pelosi's promiscuous definitions of holiness just show she's more of a shallow politician than a devout Christian.
[Correction appended: I originally wrote Rather recommended the Dalai Lama for the Time 100, not Person of the Year.] [emphasis in original]
Tommy, I agree that Newsbusters is crap, and that a relatively small number of people read it, but I get tired of that defense of BS. Nobody takes Rush Limbaugh seriously, Fox News doesn't have that big of an audience.
This stuff is viral. I see it where I live,in a very conservative area. There are a lot of people who don't read papers or look at any serious news source, they're too busy at their kids soccer games and looking at porn on the internet. But they all have at least one very outspoken wingnut friend in their circle who listens to Rush or reads Newsbusters, and has just enough info. to sound reliable.
That's what I see, anyway. People with virtually no firsthand info, but very susceptible to that misinformed neighbor
I agree totally. Someone I know (who listens to Rush, and watched only FOX) mentioned to me that she had heard Obama was a Muslim, but she had also heard he had a "disgustingly racist pastor." Somehow, in her mind, she had negotiated a way to believe both of these things, even though they are in direct conflict.
They'll believe what they want to believe, regardless of facts, which is why they tune to the likes of Rush and FOX--programs that will support their idea of "everything Democratic is bad, everything Republican is good."
He's thinking of Hindu.
Col. said: "Newsbusters is crap, and that a relatively small number of people read it"
Well, Newsbusters has more readers than this site!
According to Alexa.com, for the past 3 months, Newsbusters has had 41% more "global internet users" than Media Matters.
So, if in your view, a "relatively small number of people" read Newsbusters, how do you want to characterize the readership of Media Matters?
1. I do not concur that Newsbusters is mostly crap. It may be the typical MMFA commentator's opinion, but is not mine.
2. I made no claim about readership versus anything else, as you seem to imply. But, now that you mention it, maybe your choice of things to read makes you think MMFA is more cited. I have no data either way.
1. I do not concur that Newsbusters is mostly crap. It may be the typical MMFA commentator's opinion, but is not mine.
2. I made no claim about readership versus anything else, as you seem to imply. But, now that you mention it, maybe your choice of things to read makes you think MMFA is more cited. I have no data either way.
- - MissouriShowMe / Saturday April 26, 2008 4:28:12 PM EDT
We are all happy that you think Newsbusters is less than mostly crap. Congratulations on making such an earth shattering assessment. As for myself, I'm going to assess the Newsbuster story (which you don't deny). Let's see, according to the story, Nancy Pelosi is "more of a shallow politician than a devout Christian" for calling the Dalai Lama "His Holiness." Yet our very own "Christian" president used those same words (along with dozens of other national leaders throughout the world). Is this Crap or Not? Hmmmm. LOL, tough call, eh?retry:
We are all happy that you think Newsbusters is less than mostly crap. Congratulations on making such an earth shattering assessment. As for myself, I'm going to assess the Newsbuster story (which you don't deny). Let's see, according to the story, Nancy Pelosi is "more of a shallow politician than a devout Christian" for calling the Dalai Lama "His Holiness." Yet our very own "Christian" president used those same words (along with dozens of other national leaders throughout the world). Is this Crap or Not? Hmmmm. LOL, tough call, eh?
Ha, ha...this is rich. I'm so going to take the word of a site that uses words like leftists and calls the Democratic party the "democrat" party. No bias there fo' shizzle. Yeah..Newsbusters!!!!!!!!
Chris Wallace was considate to Obama, take that leftists!!!!!!!!!
Obama dusts off his shoulder like a rapper, take that liberal media!!!!!
I see why people read Newsbusters, you can't beat the unintentional humor.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexa_Internet
There is some controversy over how representative Alexa's user base is of typical Internet behavior. If Alexa's user base is a fair statistical sample of the Internet user population (e.g., a random sample of sufficient size), Alexa's ranking should be quite accurate. In reality, not much is known about the sample and possible sampling biases. Alexa itself notes several examples.[12][13] A known source of bias is the self-selecting, opt-in nature of Alexa traffic tracking software installation, but the significance of this bias on rankings is not reported.[14]
On April 16th, 2008 many users reported dramatic shifts in their Alexa rankings. Alexa confirmed this later in the day with an announcement that they had released the "New Alexa Ranking System" claiming that they now take into account more data sources.[15].
Just FYI.
I say the balance of the 5 % are morons too.
Could we correlate that to the NB site as well. Or did you just do that ;-)
-- Newsbusters has had 41% more "global internet users" than Media Matters. -- missourishowme
Nice job Mo...you caught'em talking out of their anal cavities...which caused all kinds of spluttering about relevance, impact, influence...blah blah blah.
You very competently pricked the elitist bubble.
Here's a little extra grist for the mill:
Rushlimbaugh.com gets almost twice as many users (after reaching millions on the radio) than mmfa.
O'reilly.com gets almost 5 times as many users as mmfa.
FoxNews.com gets over 32 times as many users as mmfa.
After experiencing a nice run when they started...mmfa's traffic has collapsed to about the same rate as when they opened their doors...now that's influence for you.
Gosh, Col., are you going for some kind of prize? First you are a radical leftist and now you (and I suppose all of us, couldn't tell from the rambling post there) are an elitist ranter. What's next you wingnut moniker hog?
JJ, I've got "troll" and "bigot" from Barney Fife, Rumplestiltskin recently named me somethng like "in the top 3 disgusting,ignorant idiots here". I could not be prouder of my accomplishments.
Now I have a couple of fresh wingnuts debating some argument that they imagined I made. Well done, Real Americans.
You're making everybody else jealous, Col.
MoSho, you and Wesley, as usual, completely missed the point. I was responding to Tommy's contention that Newsbusters was not significant enough to have their BS mentioned here. Read my first post, more slowly this time, or with some adult supervision, and see if you can keep your Ratings Queen reflexes in check.
I was not taking a shot at Newsbusters for their lack of popularity, nor saying that NB is not influential because of its relatively small number of visitors, but that it has an impact, indirectly, in spite of the small number of people who get their BS firsthand. Propaganda actually works best by word of mouth, as the people repeating it repeat what they think they read, which often ignores the deceptive words carefully put in the original source to keep things technically true, or close to it.
Sorry, I wish there was a SUPER BOLD font I could use when responding to you guys. It gets really old having to simplify everything to the point where you can avoid arguing with these phantoms you love to battle.
-- a relatively small number of people read it -- Col Harlan Sanders
Mo simply put your statement in context...if relatively few people read newsbusters...where does that put mmfa? It means that significantly fewer people read mmfa than newsbusters...simple, even for the pompous to understand. You know...like the smart ones who read newspapers.
-- Nobody takes Rush Limbaugh seriously -- Col Harlan Sanders
False...as proven by his 20 years and top ranking...there are many who take him seriously...whether you like it or not. And you directly contradicted yourself by then saying, "they all have at least one very outspoken wingnut friend in their circle who listens to Rush"...whining that this person took him seriously and was contaminating the minds of his uneducated friends...LOL
But aside from that...MoShow spanked and powdered you by showing the goofiness of your statement...one that was the outcome of an elitist ranter with an inflated self-image...mmfa has significantly lower traffic than newsbusters...a fact that even the dullest of pencils in the box can figure out...or can you?
Other than that...Have a Nice Day...and you know what that's code for.
Well King, this case is closed.
Thanks, Juliajayne, I probably should have put some of that in quotes- I did write "nobody takes Rush seriously". Obviously, you understood my intent, I was stating it in the way that those do who try to downplay the influence of propaganda.
Even after an explanation, with the key words in bold, Wesley seems confused.
Maybe it would be easier if I just said I got spanked by whoever Wes imagined I got spanked by, and let it go. I don't know how much more I could dumb it down.
I was about to thank Weslley and the other poster, for illustrating my point- that cons read just what they want to read, then I realized I fell right into their trap- I'm an elitist for expecting people to understand plain English.
They may have a point- if there are enough illiterates to swing an election, the GOP may have the advantage.
Seriously Wes, you need to reread the Colonel's post in response to Tommy (in context). You and MoSho are breathtakingly unable to grasp a general concept which could be funny if it weren't so sad (especially for our country).
BTW, I didn't expect an answer to my question. I knew it wasn't possible for either of you.
-- I must have missed where the Col. said nobody takes Rush Limbaugh seriously. -- juliajayne
Yep, you did..."Nobody takes Rush Limbaugh seriously" - Col. Harlan Sanders / Saturday April 26, 2008 3:01:42 AM EDT
-- I think you've been reading NB too much. Really, am I going blind? -- juliajayne
You're delving into mind reading...OK...they say that when you go blind your other senses become more acute.
-- And you and MoSHO brought up readership but it didn't mean to imply anything? -- juliajayne
Correctamundo. It didn't mean to "imply" anything. It "explicitly" pointed out that mmfa's traffic count was lower than NB, Limbaugh, and foxnews websites...it's called context.
-- Neither one of you answered my question BTW -- juliajayne
Just because you ask a question...doesn't mean it will be answered. Lots of questions around here go unanswered.
Does the fact that a site has a large audience make it more accurate than a site with a small audience? Nope.
Does the fact that a site has a large audience make it more relevant than a site with a small audience? Yep.
That's why advertisers pay more money to outlets with higher traffic counts...because they are more relevant in getting out their message.
It makes sense that some liberals would take offense at the information provided in NB, etal...just as some conservatives take offense at the information reported in mmfa. Does that prove that one site is more accurate than another...nope.
I will imply this...mmfa has become less relevant over time. Why? Because their traffic count has regressed to around their start-up traffic count. This slip in viewership for a political site...during one of the most hotly contested presidential races ever...may mean that their silly, inane, wordsmithing schtick has become stale.
-- the effect of word of mouth is huge to non thinking types that repeat stupid stuff -- juliajayne
I don't know if it's huge...but it certainly has an impact. But you can come down from the liberal high ground. There are plenty of "non-thinking types" all across the political spectrum and it has been that way through out history...nothing new today and it's not going to change.
I can agree that the voting public should become more informed and more active...but I can't control that. My suggestion is to read and watch all the sites...run them through your own filter...and decide for yourself.
Speak up when you agree or disagree...after all...that's what goes on at places like mmfa and newsbusters every day...and it's mostly a good thing.
Not neccesarily. MMFA is more relevant than a NB.
It makes sense that some liberals would take offense at the information provided in NB, etal...just as some conservatives take offense at the information reported in mmfa. Does that prove that one site is more accurate than another...nope.
Seriously, do you think NB is anywhere near as accurate as MMFA?
I will imply this...mmfa has become less relevant over time. Why? Because their traffic count has regressed to around their start-up traffic count. This slip in viewership for a political site...during one of the most hotly contested presidential races ever...may mean that their silly, inane, wordsmithing schtick has become stale.
I don't think so. You have a lot of websites that reprint and link to articles from MMFA so a lot of people are getting information from this website without actually coming here. Sites like rushlimbaugh.com and NB have few sites linking to them because the information provided there is not accurate or credible.
Be more precise. What do you mean? Whose message? The website or the advertiser is more relevant in getting out their message?
If you're conflating traffic with a relevant message that's plain ignant. The National Enquirer has a bigger reaership than Newsbusters, does that mean NE is more relevant than NB?
Advertisers go where people will come into contact with their product ad, it has nothing to do with the content of the venue.
Just for conext for you size queens (thanks col.) more people believe the sun revolves around the earth than believe corporations are trustworthy and more people believe in UFO's than approve of President Bush's job performance.
"This slip in viewership for a political site...during one of the most hotly contested presidential races ever...may mean that their silly, inane, wordsmithing schtick has become stale."
There's also a greater choice of lib websites to spend time at, free market and all that. There's also the possiblity that more people are too actively involved with the campaigns and local politics to spend time on blogs. But we're both opining, our speculations amount to little more than wishful thinking.
I hope you feel so good about yourself for once again obscuring the point; the shameless pant pissing rightwing attack on another person's faith. Not to mention the utter condecension to Buddhism.
I mean seriously, you slack jawed p-rick, you consider demeaning a personal committment to her faith relevant because she used a holy leader's title? No wonder conservatism is crumbling under the weight of its own bombast. It's apologists like you, wes that can be thanked for all the reversals Republicans have been experiencing.
Think about it. It's taken just a few years to crack up the onservative base that took decades to solidify. And folks like you have stood by, barely waivering on the rightness of your leaders as they savaged the body politic with intimidation, violent rhetoric and sheer emotional manipulation.
But keep on keepin' on, wes. At this rate the only Republicans left will be Klansmen and milita men.
Wesley,
Thanks for your detailed, insightful comments.
This is a "progressive" website, and of course, people are encouraged to express their opinions in these comments. I normally let them, without commenting back, even if I disagree with them. They remain their opinions.
However, when someone makes an error, such as when MMFA and KO misstated O'Reilly's ratings or when MMFA moved the years 2003 and 2004 into the 20th century (corrected several months later) to make some global warming claims, I do post.
I often also post when someone makes a statement for which an underlying assumption is wrong and can be proven.
That is what happened with the colonel: He dissed Newsbusters readership, and I knew that MMFA has an even lower readership. I gave the link to the data.
So the folks around here begrudgingly accept the data, then try to put words in my mouth and ask leading questions, which I have neither the time nor inclination to answer normally. You responded, and I thank you for that.
To the Colonel: You made comments about influence, for which I have little data. The data I do have concerning Boehlert's column and MMFA's influence would start a thread far afield from this MMFA article, so I will not go there.
Regarding this particular Newsbusters article: It is one of their weaker ones, and MMFA points out how the President also has used the same words. Point taken.
News for the group: I NORMALLY SKIP OVER THE JUNKY AND REDUNDANT (ECHO) ARTICLES IN BOTH NEWSBUSTERS AND MMFA. The quality level at both varies.
People have mentioned that they think MMFA is more "accurate" than NB: This is just your opinion, which you are welcome to, unless you provide some data. Apparently some of you try to mock this data citation by adding the word "queen": Oh, you think name calling will get you somewhere?
Finally, one other interesting thing brought up on Alexa: Page views. The average number of page views per MMFA visitor is fewer than 2. That means that a great many of the visitors never leave the home page or the page they reached while linked from another website. Remember, there are folks who go from page to page to page here, which gets added to the average of page views.
People have mentioned that they think MMFA is more "accurate" than NB: This is just your opinion, which you are welcome to, unless you provide some data.
Newsbusters uses their own opinions, the opinions of others or ad hominem attacks to combat facts. They're not a credible operation.
That is what happened with the colonel: He dissed Newsbusters readership, and I knew that MMFA has an even lower readership.(Missourishowme)
MoSho, I won't mention it again, but I think you're still completely confused. I never dissed NB for the number of visitors the site has, I was contesting Tommy's point that the site is not significant enough to mention. If NB has more traffic than this site, you're only reinforcing my point.
the term "Ratings Queen" is one I used to use here toward those who rebutted inaccuracies or misinformation from sources by pointing out their popularity. It's meaningless to me. American Idol and McDonalds are very popular.
I'll admit my writing isn't always that clear when posting comments here in a hurry, and I should probably proofread more. In my first post, I should have put the sentences about Rush & NB's audience in quotes, or made it more clear I was expressing the opinion of those who downplay their influence.
I apologize to anyone who understood it from the start for taking up all of this space with redundancies.
"I apologize to anyone who understood it from the start for taking up all of this space with redundancies."--ColSanders
Thank you, I was starting to think you didn't care about those of us who have a brain or are elite. :-)
Yeah and Spongebob gets more viewers than ANY CSpan this means WHAT again? I hear Hitlers speeches were very popular also. Did you REALLY think that made any relevant point whatsoever. I bet Jenna Jameson sites get more traffic too. Your game is weak.
One last time:
Col. said: "Newsbusters is crap (opinion), and that a relatively small number of people read it (based on what data?)"
My reply: Well, Newsbusters has more readers than this site!
According to Alexa.com, for the past 3 months, Newsbusters has had 41% more "global internet users" than Media Matters.
So, if in your view, a "relatively small number of people" read Newsbusters, how do you want to characterize the readership of Media Matters?
==================================================
While there was a post that cited criticism of Alexa (fine!), there has been no response from any progressive as to the even lower readership of MMFA, nor any citation of contrary data.
There have been accusations that I cannot read, apparently since I did not comment about other things people have written: Get used to it! I feel no need respond to everything that is written here. Some of you want to talk about the relevance of ratings, I SIMPLY POINTED OUT THAT IF "A RELATIVELY SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE" READ NEWSBUSTERS (what Colonel said) I PUCKISHLY WANT TO HEAR HIM DESCRIBE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO READ MMFA. (I'll help: minuscule, tiny, even smaller...)
Good night, and sleep well!
Colonel's words, highlighted different ways:
Newsbusters is crap, and that a relatively small number of people read it
My comments were in reply to the bolded part, not the italicized/underlined part.
My comments were about the part for which there is numerical data to support or refute it; the italicized/underlined part is one person's opinion.
Solon, paraphrased: The bolded part is irrelevant and should not be commented upon (along with too many insults to bother counting)
I chose to comment on the bolded part and not on the italicized/underlined part, which many here consider to be the main point. You can't always get what you want.
Have a nice week!
And you have shown that you do not understand the words "relatively small."
So NB has more readers than MMfA. So what? Both numbers are RELATIVELY SMALL.
As I have stated elsewhere, popularity of opinion is not related to accuracy of opinion.
Easy: So NB has more readers than MMfA. So what?
It makes me happy, and I like being happy!
Mo Sho, while i appreciate you and Wesley supporting me in disagreeing with Tommy's point that Newsbusters isn't significant enough to be mentioned here, your help would be more credible if you actually understood that you weren't disagreeing with me.
I cannot believe how difficult this is for you.
Colonel said:
i appreciate you and Wesley supporting me in disagreeing with Tommy's point that Newsbusters isn't significant enough to be mentioned here
Sorry to disappoint you: I made no comment as to what MMFA should do. Back months and months ago, when I noted that the MMFA praises of Keith Olbermann did not fit the parameters listed under the "ABOUT US" link on every MMFA page, I was roundly criticized, labeled as unworthy to suggest what MMFA should and should not write about, especially being a free site. I tend to restrict my comments to inaccuracies and statements not consistent with available data.
Again (and again and again), I only commented on your claim about Newsbusters' readership numbers and compared them to those of MMFA.
Yes that is what you did. There was no rational reason to. Nor was it in any way a meaningful comparison. No one said that the number of traffic NB gets means it is of more or less quality because of that traffic, in fact the Colonels point was actually the OPPOSITE of that, so your inabilty to GET the point, your silly thinking you had some gotcha BECAUSE you misunderstood the point and your meaningless non sequitur has been noted. Along with the fact your reading comprehension is pitiful. You get some points for fooling Wesely into thinking you had a point but that isnt very hard so not many points.
Most of what is on Newsbusters is crap.
Agreed. But since right-wing morons like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin cite NewsBusters as a source all the time, it's important to remind people what an unreliable source they truly are.
Newsbusters is certainly worthy of criticism. Their columnists often appear on cable news shows, where Newsbusters is treated as a legitimate news media watchdog group.
<>Also, I made a quick search for newsbusters on Google news and came up with 511 results.
<>They may be garbage, but a whole lot of people seem to be buying the garbage.Bill Hill quite the shill gets his thrill by being run of the mill.
I thought it was Baghdad also. But it happens everyday over there. 140,000 American troops, 60,000 Iraqi troops and thousands of Iraqi policemen and mercenaries. That surge really is working.
P.S. And our troops are dying. Go Bush....
W A R.....We Are Republicans
Hi-tech lynching will lose this next election. People are tired of it. But I can't see the Republans doing anything but trying to "lynch" (nice code word but I'm not biting). How else can they win? By discussing issues...that would be funny and a tactic which they haven't tried in 35 years. And thank you for the good grade. If only you were my teacher rather than Sister Mary Goodie Gunda.
*argument does not fly*
vodka, you will be the death of me.
Nice to see someone received their Limbaugh Talking Points (patent pending) this morning.
Tell me, do you get them via email or RSS?
Or does Limbaugh deliver them personally on his way to have sex with minors in faraway lands?
They're like that Simpsons episode where the 20/20 style show clipped together Homer's interview to make it sound like he molested the babysitter.
For those of you who didn't see it, he really was just peeling a gummy Venus De Milo off of her butt when she sat on it in the car.
Especially after Homer has his name cleared by the voeyuristic video of Groundskeeper Willie, then excitedly settles in to watch the next episode of the tabloid show. The same one he was smeared by, with their report on the peeping Tom Scotsman.
Is Homer the MSM target demographic?
Rowdy Roddy Peeper!
I liked the huge list of corrections they ran at lightning speed at the end of the show. The more I think about it, the more that episode perfectly sums up the MSM today.
Kent Brockman: "This is hour fifty-seven of our live, round-the-clock coverage outside the Simpson estate. Remember by the way, to tune in tonight at eight o'clock for highlights of today's vigil, including when the garbageman came and when Marge Simpson put the cat out - possibly because it was harrassed, we don't know. Of course there's no way to see into the Simpson home without some kind of heat sensitive infrared camera. So let's turn it on.
...
Now, here are some results from our phone-in poll. Ninety-five percent of the people believe Homer Simpson is guilty. Now, of course, this is just a television poll, which is not legally binding - unless Proposition 304 passes, and we all pray it will."
Don’t let the Regime fool you. The Dalai Lama is little more than a construct of the murderous bourgeois dogs like George W. Bush, Richard Gere, and Kobe Bryant. He has no place in our struggle for improvement, as these pigs would have you believe. Stop being blinded by the foolish rhetoric of the inconsequential.
the jonesyreport.blogspot.com
Stop being blinded by the foolish rhetoric of the inconsequential.
Don't worry, no one will ever be blinded by the likes of you, so why not just stop posting your foolish ignorant rhetoric now?
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30371
YAY GOD!
This is so ridiculous. Only Newbusters could make something up like this to try and attempt to connect Pelosi to her "un-Christianess" by calling the Dalai Lama by his, well, title and name.
I'm sure it's just because she's a San Francisco liberal and all...
Nancy Pelosi is being hasseled becsause she isnt being a good enough Christian? For calling the Dala Lama by his offical title?
America gets scarier every day...
"Tibetan Buddhists worship a multiplicity of gods"?? Incorrect. Heck, Buddha is not even a "God". Me thinks ol' Timmy Graham is thinking [SIC] of Hinduism.
Oh, and the Senate Minority Leader too, recorded here.
Sheesh.
As a buddhist, who will not engage with the OFF TOPIC comments posted here, IMHO she was being respectful to a man who, to many who are NOT christian, but Buddhist is "his Holiness" as the Pope is to many Catholics. I myself refer to the Pope, The Archbishop of Canterbury, and many other spiritual Leaders as "Your Holiness" in respect of thier standing as a spiritual leader. The Dalai Lama is a good friend of Mrs. Pelosi and many others in congress for his peaceful and compassionate work for ALL people who endure prosecution and human rights violations around the world. His example could be well used by the people who berate him(as on this site) who consider themselves Christians. Buddhist have a deep respect for all religions (by the way, we do not worship "many Gods" That's Hinduism) and I personally am offended by some of these remarks because you are not practicing what you preach. Jesus was a good and rightious man who beleived in loving and accepting all beings. Judge not, lest thee be Judged. Sincerely Patrick M. Langone
Sparkypat,
I agree.
Sparkypat:
You nailed it.
I have a simple analogy for those who would equate relevance with page views. Suppose you put twenty people in a room. Nineteen of them are penniless paupers, and one is a wealthy investment manager. The nineteen paupers read NewsBusters, and the investment manager reads the Financial Times. Objectively, in that room, which source is more relevant, the one with nineteen readers who accomplish nothing, or the one with only a single reader who gets information he can actually use?
I really think "relevance" isn't the word you're looking for. "Popularity" is the word that describes what you're referring to, and just like in the analogy above, popularity has nothing to do with relevance. The popularity of NewsBusters is relevant only because it's a modestly successful part of a propaganda machine.
Webprogrammer
I would disagree with your premise. What was the goal of the 20 people in the room? That would define the relevance of their readings.
If the goal was financial news...then reading a political site would not be relevant. If the goal was political news...then reading the financial site would not be relevant. It's like comparing Sponge Bob Square Pants with American idol...meaningless for relevance...but entirely appropriate when discussing popularity.
The premise should compare financial sites with financial sites...or political sites with political sites.
Lets assume their goal was political info. 19 read "Joe's Political Hotwire" and 1 read "Jim's Campaign News"...it would be clear that Joe's website would be more relevant...not necessarily more accurate...but more relevant...because it reached more people seeking political news.
It's kind of like the old saw, "if a tree fell in a forest..."
The arguments of popularity, accuracy, and relevance are three different scenarios. In this particular case...if mmfa was the most accurate and meaningful political website on the internet...yet few read it...they would have little relevance in the political landscape...that is the importance of traffic...when defining relevance.
It's part of a mechanism to push back against the propoganda stream of the right.